leadership527
Posts: 5026
Joined: 6/2/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: UniqueRaven i agree with all the patterns of definition you've created above, from a functional standpoint. Yeah, but I'm an engineer at heart. I seek practical, functional definitions of the things I do rather than metaphysical ones. So, for instance, you broke it down into serve/submit/obey. Submit and obey are one and the same thing -- or at least when I read sociology and psychology papers they are. Serve is different and it, in my mind, has nothing to do with either dominance or submission. Good leaders serve the organizations they lead. Carol and I both serve the relationship. i do think though that when it comes down to the specific individual and whether he/she is submissive, or not, it becomes much more hazy, as that act of surrendering is a vast and broad category, with people falling all sorts of places along the curve. Heh, humans are complex. No argument there. What I think is that ANY time you try to slice and dice a human being, it is never going to capture the totality of that. That doesn't mean that the analysis is worthless though. It just means that it is incomplete. In this case, I'm looking at one specific thing and those categories serve to highlight the differences in that vein (namely, the difference between role based submission and personality trait based submission). Think of it like saying, "There are two kinds of people in the world, men and women." That distinction is hardly meaningless. But calling me a "man" is certainly an incomplete description which serves to highlight certain attributes only. Which is one of the reasons i don't begin to try to identify or categorize the submission of others - we are all, simply, unique. *chuckles* it's an engineer thing. It's just the way my brain works. ETA - i also don't believe someone is a slave just because her Master says she is. i've seen enough examples to the contrary now to know that this is not always true. Ooooh, controversy, hee hee! Ultimate reality here is that there is no such thing as "slave" in the sense that we mean it. Without some sort of canonical BDSM dictionary, the word has no meaning. So Carol is my slave to US because we agree that it is so. You are a slave because you think you are. Whether or not *I* think you are is kind of totally irrelevant nor could either of us ever "win" such a debate if we disagreed. I can say certain factual things along the lines of "Carol obeys me all the time without fail." You could line those factual statements up and decide if that added up to "slave" in your head. Others could do the same. But we can never, as a community, all agree on that. None of that analysis, agreement, or disagreement would change the reality of our marriage. Just for the record, I don't think an awful lot of the subs on these boards are submissive. Nor do I think that a lot of the slaves are "slaves". I also know for a fact that there are a great many people here who do not see me as either dominant or a "master". If Carol posted more, there'd be a lot of folks who wouldn't see her as either submissive or slave. And all of that thinking means absolutely nothing -- not even that they'd be a bad partner in relation to me since people change when they enter into a relationship.
_____________________________
~Jeff I didn't so much "enslave" Carol as I did "enlove" her. - Me I want a joyous, loving, respectful relationship where the male is in charge and deserves to be. - DavanKael
|